Designation: C 1161 – 94 (Reapproved 1996)

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS

100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Reprinted from the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Copyright ASTM

Standard Test Method for

Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at Ambient
Temperature1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1161; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of flexural
strength of advanced ceramic materials at ambient temperature.
Four-point–1⁄4 point and three-point loadings with prescribed
spans are the standard. Rectangular specimens of prescribed
cross-section sizes are used with specified features in pre-
scribed specimen-fixture combinations.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard. The values given in parentheses are for information
only.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E 4 Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines2
E 337 Test Method for Measured Humidity with a Psy-
chrometer (The Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb Tem-
peratures)3 NOTE 1—Configuration:
2.2 Military Standard: A: L = 20 mm
MIL-STD-1942 (MR) Flexural Strength of High Perfor- B: L = 40 mm
mance Ceramics at Ambient Temperature4 C: L = 80 mm
FIG. 1 1 The Four-Point–1⁄4 Point and Three-Point Fixture
3. Terminology Configuration
3.1 Definitions: between two support bearings (see Fig. 1).
3.1.1 flexural strength—a measure of the ultimate strength
of a specified beam in bending. 4. Significance and Use
3.1.2 four-point–1⁄4 point flexure—configuration of flexural 4.1 This test method may be used for material development,
strength testing where a specimen is symmetrically loaded at quality control, characterization, and design data generation
two locations that are situated one quarter of the overall span, purposes.
away from the outer two support bearings (see Fig. 1). 4.2 The flexure stress is computed based on simple beam
3.1.3 three-point flexure—configuration of flexural strength theory with assumptions that the material is isotropic and
testing where a specimen is loaded at a location midway homogeneous, the moduli of elasticity in tension and compres-
sion are identical, and the material is linearly elastic. The
average grain size should be no greater than one fiftieth of the
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C-28 on beam thickness. The homogeneity and isotropy assumption in
Advanced Ceramics and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C28.01 on
Properties and Performance. the standard rule out the use of this test for continuous
Current edition approved July 25, 1994. Published February 1995. Originally fiber-reinforced ceramics.
published as C 1161 – 90. Last previous edition C 1161 – 90.
2
4.3 Flexural strength of a group of test specimens is
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01.
3 influenced by several parameters associated with the test
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 11.03.
4
Available from Standardization Documents, Order Desk, Bldg. 4, Section D, procedure. Such factors include the loading rate, test environ-
700 Robbins Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094. ment, specimen size, specimen preparation, and test fixtures.

1

Specimen sizes and fixtures were chosen to provide a balance
between practical configurations and resulting errors, as dis-
cussed in MIL-STD 1942 (MR) and Refs (1) and (2).5 Specific
fixture and specimen configurations were designated in order to
permit ready comparison of data without the need for Weibull-
size scaling.
4.4 The flexural strength of a ceramic material is dependent
on both its inherent resistance to fracture and the presence of
defects. Analysis of a fracture surface, fractography, though
beyond the scope of this test method, is highly recommended
for all purposes, especially for design data as discussed in
MIL-STD-1942 (MR) and Refs (2–5).
5. Interferences
5.1 The effects of time-dependent phenomena, such as stress
corrosion or slow crack growth on strength tests conducted at
ambient temperature, can be meaningful even for the relatively
short times involved during testing. Such influences must be
considered if flexure tests are to be used to generate design
data.
5.2 Surface preparation of test specimens can introduce
machining flaws which may have a pronounced effect on
flexural strength. Machining damage imposed during specimen
preparation can be either a random interfering factor, or an
inherent part of the strength characteristic to be measured.
Surface preparation can also lead to residual stresses. Universal
or standardized test methods of surface preparation do not
exist. It should be understood that final machining steps may or
may not negate machining damage introduced during the early
course or intermediate machining.
6. Apparatus
6.1 Loading—Specimens may be loaded in any suitable
testing machine provided that uniform rates of direct loading
can be maintained. The load-measuring system shall be free of
initial lag at the loading rates used and shall be equipped with
a means for retaining read-out of the maximum load applied to
the specimen. The accuracy of the testing machine shall be in
accordance with Practices E 4 but within 0.5 %.
6.2 Four-Point Flexure—Four-point–1⁄4 point fixtures (Fig.
1) shall have support and loading spans as shown in Table 1.
6.3 Three-Point Flexure—Three-point fixtures (Fig. 1) shall
have a support span as shown in Table 1.
6.4 Bearings—Three- and four-point flexure:
6.4.1 Cylindrical bearing edges shall be used for the support
of the test specimen and for the application of load. The
cylinders shall be made of hardened steel which has a hardness
no less than HRC 40 or which has a yield strength no less than
5
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the references at the end of this
test method.
TABLE 1 Fixture Spans
Configuration Support Span (L), mm Loading Span, mm
A 20
B 40
C 80
C 1161
1240 MPa (z180 ksi). Alternatively, the cylinders may be
made of a ceramic with an elastic modulus between 2.0 and 4.0
3 105 MPa (30–60 3 106 psi) and a flexural strength no less
than 275 MPa (z40 ksi). The portions of the test fixture that
support the bearings may need to be hardened to prevent
permanent deformation. The cylindrical bearing length shall be
at least three times the specimen width. The above require-
ments are intended to ensure that ceramics with strengths up to
1400 MPa (z200 ksi) and elastic moduli as high as 4.8 3 105
MPa (70 3 106 psi) can be tested without fixture damage.
Higher strength and stiffer ceramic specimens may require
harder bearings.
6.4.2 The bearing cylinder diameter shall be approximately
1.5 times the beam depth of the test specimen size employed.
See Table 2.
6.4.3 The bearing cylinders shall be carefully positioned
such that the spans are accurate within 60.10 mm. The load
application bearing for the three-point configurations shall be
positioned midway between the support bearing within 60.10
mm. The load application (inner) bearings for the four-point
configurations shall be centered with respect to the support
(outer) bearings within 60.10 mm.
6.4.4 The bearing cylinders shall be free to rotate in order to
relieve frictional constraints (with the exception of the middle-
load bearing in three-point flexure which need not rotate). This
can be accomplished by mounting the cylinders in needle
bearing assemblies, or more simply by mounting the cylinders
as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Note that the outer-support
bearings roll outward and the inner-loading bearings roll
inward.
6.5 Semiarticulating–Four-Point Fixture—Specimens pre-
pared in accordance with the parallelism requirements of 7.1
may be tested in a semiarticulating fixture as illustrated in Fig.
2. The bearing cylinders themselves must be parallel to each
other to within 0.015 mm (over their length).
6.6 Fully Articulating–Four-Point Fixture—Specimens that
are as-fired, heat treated, or oxidized often have slight twists or
unevenness. Specimens which do not meet the parallelism
requirements of 7.1 shall be tested in a fully articulating fixture
as illustrated in Fig. 3.
6.7 The fixture shall be stiffer than the specimen, so that
most of the crosshead travel is imposed onto the specimen.
7. Specimen
7.1 Specimen Size—Dimensions are given in Table 3 and
shown in Fig. 4. Cross-sectional dimensional tolerances are
60.13 mm for B and C specimens, and 60.05 mm for A. The
parallelism tolerances on the four longitudinal faces are 0.015
mm for A and B and 0.03 mm for C. The two end faces need
not be precision machined.
7.2 Specimen Preparation—Depending upon the intended
application of the flexural strength data, use one of the
following four specimen preparation procedures:
TABLE 2 Nominal Bearing Diameters
Configuration Diameter, mm
10 A 2.0 to 2.5
20 B 4.5
40 C 9.0
2
 C 1161
NOTE 1—Configuration:
A: L = 20 mm
B: L = 40 mm
C: L = 80 mm
NOTE 2—Load is applied through a ball which permits the loading member to tilt as necessary to ensure uniform loading
FIG. 2 Schematic of a Semiarticulated Four-Point Fixture Suitable for Flat and Parallel Specimens
7.2.1 As-Fabricated—The flexural specimen shall simulate
the surface condition of an application where no machining is
to be used; for example, as-cast, sintered, or injection-molded
parts. No additional machining specifications are relevant. An
edge chamfer is not necessary in this instance. As-fired
specimens are especially prone to twist or warpage and might
not meet the parallelism requirements. In this instance, a fully
articulating fixture (6.6 and Fig. 3) shall be used in testing.
7.2.2 Application-Matched Machining—The specimen shall
have the same surface preparation as that given to a compo-
nent. Unless the process is proprietary, the report shall be
specific about the stages of material removal, wheel grits,
wheel bonding, and the amount of material removed per pass.
7.2.3 Customary Procedures—In instances where a custom-
ary machining procedure has been developed that is completely
satisfactory for a class of materials (that is, it induces no
unwanted surface damage or residual stresses), this procedure
shall be used.
7.2.4 Standard Procedures—In the instances where 7.2.1
through 7.2.3 are not appropriate, then 7.2.4 shall apply. This
procedure shall serve as minimum requirements and a more
stringent procedure may be necessary.
7.2.4.1 All grinding shall be done with an ample supply of
appropriate filtered coolant to keep workpiece and wheel
constantly flooded and particles flushed. Grinding shall be in at
least two stages, ranging from coarse to fine rates of material
removal. All machining shall be in the surface grinding mode,
and shall be parallel to the specimen long axis shown in Fig. 5.
No Blanchard or rotary grinding shall be used.
7.2.4.2 The stock-removal rate shall not exceed 0.03 mm
(0.001 in.) per pass to the last 0.06 mm (0.002 in.) per face.
Final (and intermediate) finishing shall be performed with a
diamond wheel that is between 320 and 500 grit. No less than
0.06 mm per face shall be removed during the final finishing
phase, and at a rate of not more than 0.002 mm (0.0001 in.) per
3
pass. Remove approximately equal stock from opposite faces.
7.2.4.3 Materials with low fracture toughness and a greater
susceptibility to grinding damage may require finer grinding
wheels at very low removal rates.
7.2.4.4 The four long edges of each specimen shall be
uniformly chamfered at 45°, a distance of 0.12 6 0.03 mm as
shown in Fig. 4. They can alternatively be rounded with a
radius of 0.156 0.05 mm. Edge finishing must be comparable
to that applied to the specimen surfaces. In particular, the
direction of machining shall be parallel to the specimen long
axis. If chamfers are larger than the tolerance allows, then
corrections shall be made to the stress calculation (1). Alter-
natively, if a specimen can be prepared with an edge that is free
of machining damage, then a chamfer is not required.
7.2.5 Handling Precautions—Care should be exercised in
storing and handling of specimens to avoid the introduction of
random and severe flaws, such as might occur if specimens
were allowed to impact or scratch each other.
7.3 Number of Specimens—A minimum of 10 specimens
shall be required for the purpose of estimating the mean. A
minimum of 30 shall be necessary if estimates regarding the
form of the strength distribution are to be reported (for
example, a Weibull modulus). The number of specimens
required by this test method has been established with the
intent of determining not only reasonable confidence limits on
strength distribution parameters, but also to help discern
multiple-flaw population distributions. More than 30 speci-
mens are recommended if multiple-flaw populations are
present.
8. Procedure
8.1 Test specimens on their appropriate fixtures in specific
testing configurations. Test specimens Size A on either the
four-point A fixture or the three-point A fixture. Similarly, test
B specimens on B fixtures, and C specimens on C fixtures. A
 C 1161

NOTE 1—Configuration:
A: L = 20 mm
B: L = 40 mm
C: L = 80 mm
NOTE 2—Bearing A is fixed so that it will not pivot about the x axis. The other three bearings are free to pivot about the x axis.
FIG. 3 Schematic of a Fully Articulating Four-Point Fixture Suitable for Twisted or Uneven Specimens

TABLE 3 Specimen Size of contact between the bearings and the specimen to ensure
even line loading and that no dirt or contamination is present.
Configuration Width (b), mm Depth (d), mm Length (LT), min, If uneven line loading of the specimen occurs, use fully
mm
articulating fixtures.
A 2.0 1.5 25
B 4.0 3.0 45 8.4 Mark the specimen to identify the points of load
C 8.0 6.0 90 application and also so that the tensile and compression faces
can be distinguished. Carefully drawn pencil marks will
suffice.
fully articulating fixture is required if the specimen parallelism
8.5 Put cotton, crumbled tissues, or other appropriate
requirements cannot be met. An alternative procedure with a D
material around specimen to prevent pieces from flying out of
specimen is given in the Appendix.
the fixtures upon fracture. This step may help ensure operator’s
8.2 Carefully place each specimen into the test fixture to
safety and preserve primary fracture pieces for subsequent
preclude possible damage and to ensure alignment of the
fractographic analysis.
specimen in the fixture. In particular, there should be an equal
8.6 Loading Rates—The crosshead rates are chosen so that
amount of overhang of the specimen beyond the outer bearings
the strain rate upon the specimen shall be of the order of 1.0 3
and the specimen should be directly centered below the axis of
10−4s−1.
the applied load.
8.3 Slowly apply the load at right angles to the fixture. The 8.6.1 The strain rate for either the three- or four-point–1⁄4
maximum permissible stress in the specimen due to initial load point mode of loading is as follows:
shall not exceed 25 % of the mean strength. Inspect the points e 5 6 ds/L2 (1)

4
 C 1161

FIG. 4 The Standard Test Specimens

8.6.3 Times to failure for typical ceramics will range from 3

to 30 s. It is assumed that the fixtures are relatively rigid and
that most of the testing-machine crosshead travel is imposed as
strain on the test specimen.
8.7 Breakload—Measure the breakload with an accuracy of
60.5 %.
8.8 Specimen Dimension—Determine the thickness and
width of each specimen to within 0.0025 mm (0.0001 in.). In
order to avoid damage in the critical area, it is recommended
that measurement be made after the specimen has broken at a
point near the fracture origin. It is highly recommended to
retain and preserve all primary fracture fragments for
fractographic analysis.
8.9 Determine the relative humidity in accordance with Test
Method E 337.
8.10 The occasional use of a strain-gaged specimen is
recommended to verify that there is negligible error in stress, in
FIG. 5 Surface Grinding Parallel to the Specimen Longitudinal
accordance with 11.2.
Axis 9. Calculation
9.1 The standard formula for the strength of a beam in
where: four-point– 1⁄4 point flexure is as follows:
e! = strain rate, 3 PL
d = specimen thickness, S5
s = crosshead speed, and 4 bd2
L = outer (support) span. where:
8.6.2 Crosshead speeds for the different testing
P = breakload,
configurations are given in Table 4. L = outer (support) span,
b = specimen width, and
TABLE 4 Crosshead Speeds for Displacement-Controlled d = specimen thickness.
Testing Machine 9.2 The standard formula for the strength of a beam in
three-point flexure is as follows:
Configuration Crosshead Speeds, mm/min
3 PL
A 0.2 S5 (2)
B 0.5 2 bd2
C 1.0
9.3 Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 shall be used for the reporting of results

5

and are the common equations used for the flexure strength of
a specimen.
NOTE 1—It should be recognized however, that Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 do not
necessarily give the stress that was acting directly upon the flaw that
caused failure. (In some instances, for example, for fracture mirror or
fracture toughness calculations, the fracture stress must be corrected for
subsurface origins and breaks outside the gage length.)
NOTE 2—The conversion between pounds per square inch (psi) and
megapascals (MPa) is included for convenience (145.04 psi = 1 MPa;
therefore, 100 000 psi = 100 ksi = 689.5 MPa.)
10. Report
10.1 Test reports shall include the following:
10.1.1 Test configuration and specimen size used.
10.1.2 The number of specimens (n) used.
10.1.3 All relevant material data including vintage data or
billet identification data. (Did all specimens come from one
billet?) As a minimum, the date the material was manufactured
shall be reported.
10.1.4 Exact method of specimen preparation, including all
stages of machining.
10.1.5 Heat treatments or exposures, if any.
10.1.6 Test environment including humidity (Test Method
E 337) and temperature.
10.1.7 Strain rate or crosshead rate.
10.1.8 Report the strength of every specimen in
megapascals (pounds per square inch) to three significant
figures.
10.1.9 Mean ( S̄) and standard deviation (SD) where:
n
(1 S
S̄ 5 n
Œ
n A1.3 % difference in the mean and an 18 % difference in
(1 ~S 2 sS! 2
SD 5
~n 2 1!
10.1.10 Report of any deviations and alterations from the
procedures described in this test method.
11. Precision and Bias
11.1 The flexure strength of a ceramic is not a deterministic
quantity, but will vary from one specimen to another. There
will be an inherent statistical scatter in the results for finite
sample sizes (for example, 30 specimens). Weibull statistics
can model this variability as discussed in Refs (1) and (6–10).
This test method has been devised so that the precision is very
high and the bias very low compared to the inherent variability
of strength of the material.
11.2 Experimental Errors:
11.2.1 The experimental errors in the flexure test have been
thoroughly analyzed and documented in Ref (1). The
C 1161
specifications and tolerances in this test method have been
chosen such that the individual errors are typically less than
0.5 % each and the total error is probably less than 3 % for
four-point configurations B and C. (A conservative upper limit
is of the order of 5 %.) This is the maximum possible error in
stress for an individual specimen.
11.2.2 The error due to cross-section reduction associated
with chamfering the edges can be of the order of 1 % for
configuration B and less for configuration C in either three or
four-point loadings, as discussed in Ref (1). The chamfer sizes
in this test method have been reduced relative to those allowed
in MIL-STD-1942 (MR). Chamfers larger than specified in this
test method shall require a correction to stress calculations as
discussed in Ref (1).
11.2.3 Configuration A is somewhat more prone to error
which is probably greater than 5 % in four-point loading.
Chamfer error due to reduction of cross-section areas is 4.1 %.
For this reason, this configuration is not recommended for
design purposes, but only for characterization and materials
development.
11.3 An intralaboratory comparison of strength values of a
high purity (99.9 %) sintered alumina was held (7). Three
different individuals with three different universal testing
machines on three different days compared the strength of lots
of 30 specimens from a common batch of material. Three
different fixtures, but of a common design, were used. The
mean strengths varied by a maximum of 2.4 % and the Weibull
moduli by a maximum of 27 % (average of 11.4). Both
variations are well within the inherent scatter predicted for
sample sizes of 30 as shown in Refs (1), (7), and (9).
(3) 11.4 An interlaboratory comparison of strength of the same
alumina as cited in 11.3 was made between two laboratories.
Weibull modulus was observed, both of which are well within
(4)
the inherent variability of the material.
11.5 An interlaboratory comparison of strength of a
different alumina and of a silicon nitride was made between
seven international laboratories. Reference (7) is a
comprehensive report on this study which tested over 2000
specimens. Experimental results for strength variability on B
specimens, in both three- and four-point testing, were generally
consistent with analytical predictions of Ref (9). For a material
with a Weibull modulus of 10, estimates of the mean (or
characteristic strength) for samples of 30 specimens will have
a coefficient of variance of 2.2 %. The coefficient of variance
for estimates of the Weibull modulus is 18 %.
12. Keywords
12.1 advanced ceramics; flexural strength; four-point
flexure; three-point flexure
6
 C 1161

APPENDIX

(Nonmandatory Information)

X1. ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE

X1.1 An alternative procedure is given in the following
paragraphs. This alternate procedure may be used when the
procedures in the main text are not suitable.
X1.2 Fixture Spans—A support span of 38.10 mm (1.5 in.)
shall be used for three- or four-point loading, and a loading
span of 19.05 mm (0.75 in.) shall be used for the four-point
loading.
thickness, 3.18 mm (0.125 in.) and the length greater than 45
mm (1.8 in.).
X1.5 Crosshead Speed—Crosshead speed shall be 0.5
mm/min (0.02 in./min).
X1.6 All other testing procedures and tolerances are as
specified in the main text for the B configuration.

X1.3 Bearing Diameter—A bearing diameter of 4.5 to 5.0
mm diameter shall be used.
X1.4 Specimen Size—The specimen size D shall be as
given in Fig. X1.1. The width is 6.35 mm (0.25 in.); the
X1.7 Precision and Bias—Data on precision and bias
obtained during an interlaboratory round robin study of the
flexure strength of a sintered silicon nitride will be published
soon. This study was conducted as a subtask of a larger
International Energy Agency (IEA) round robin effect (11).

FIG. X1.1 The Alternative *D’ Test Specimen

REFERENCES

(1) Baratta, F. I., Quinn, G. D., and Matthews, W. T., “Errors Associated
With Flexure Testing of Brittle Materials,” U.S. Army MTL TR 87-35,
July 1987.
(2) Quinn, G. D., Baratta, F. I., and Conway, J. A., “Commentary on U.S.
Army Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of High
Performance Ceramics at Ambient Temperature,” U.S. Army AMMRC
85-21, August 1985.
(3) Hoagland, R., Marshall, C., and Duckworth, W., “Reduction of Errors
in Ceramic Bend Tests,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Vol
59, No. 5–6, May–June, 1976, pp. 189–192.
(4) Quinn, G. D., and Baratta, F. I., “Flexure Data, Can It Be Used For
Ceramics Part Design?” Advanced Materials and Processes,
December 1985, pp. 31–35.
(5) Quinn, G. D., “Properties Testing and Materials Evaluation,” Ceramic
Engineering and Science Proceedings, Vol 5, May–June 1984, pp.
298–311.
(6) Quinn, G. D., “Fractographic Analysis and the Army Flexure Test
Method,” Fractography of Glass and Ceramics, Vol 22 of Advances in
Ceramics, American Ceramic Society, 1988, pp. 314–334.
(7) Quinn, G. D., “Flexure Strength of Advanced Ceramics—A Round
Robin Exercise,” U.S. Army MTL TR 89-62, July 1989.
(8) Davies, D. G. S., “The Statistical Approach to Engineering Design in
Ceramics,” Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society, Vol 22, 1979,
pp. 429–452.
(9) Ritter, J. Jr., Bandyopadhyay, N., and Jakus, K., “Statistical
Reproducibility of the Dynamic and Static Fatigue Experiments,”
Ceramic Bulletin, Vol 60, No. 8, 1981, pp. 798–806.
(10) Weibull, W., “Statistical Distribution Function of Wide
Applicability,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol 18, 1951, p. 293.
(11) Tennery, V., “International Energy Agency Annex II,” Ceramic
Technology Newsletter, Number 23, April–June 1989.

The American Society for Testing and Materials takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection
with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such
patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible
technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your
views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.